Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we go by what God said, He formed man on the 6th day, not from millions of years of evolution. Evolution is just a way to disenfranchise God from any part in His incredible creation of humanity. Oh, some can say God had animals evolve into humans but that is not what God said. It comes down to Who does one believe? God or fallible man?
nope. all he said was from what he made it from and a time frame that the jews would understand. The rock record shows how he did it and "god's" time frame used. In gods words not man. so you gotz a part right.
A really good picture of those who believe in Evolution (Darwinian, etc) and not the Bible. NO science actually proves any of the theory at all. Speculation only which is also known as wishful thinking.
genetics and abio-genetics are blowing the whole phony theory to little bits and pieces , better known as figments of man's imagination.
Waiting for one bit pf proof of Evolution to be submitted and ................... still waiting.
the bible don't say that. and the rock record is in god's own hand writing so you are a snow ball. but if you understand DNA as a program then yes they did and they still do live "next too" each other. It is one big code with many subroutines running. It is stupid simple to see. Just open your no-god dern eyes.
There are two mentions of what can only be described as dinosaurs in the Bible, and
ancient civilizations did make depictions of dinosaurs, that were not fantasy but living
creatures. The Chinese made ornaments that look identical to stegasaurus and triceratops
millenia before Chuck Darwin or Rene Descartes lived. The fossil record is not there to
prove evolution, it fails miserably; mutations do not advance, they deteriorate, and
the natural world is not the same natural world which used to exist. You are the one
who should look into this more if you have an open mind, the onus is not on creationists,
it is on evolutionists and the reason why they still can't convince a large segment of the
population is that there are those who are smart enough to see it is simply not valid.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
There are two mentions of what can only be described as dinosaurs in the Bible, and
ancient civilizations did make depictions of dinosaurs, that were not fantasy but living
creatures. The Chinese made ornaments that look identical to stegasaurus and triceratops
millenia before Chuck Darwin or Rene Descartes lived. The fossil record is not there to
prove evolution, it fails miserably; mutations do not advance, they deteriorate, and
the natural world is not the same natural world which used to exist. You are the one
who should look into this more if you have an open mind, the onus is not on creationists,
it is on evolutionists and the reason why they still can't convince a large segment of the
population is that there are those who are smart enough to see it is simply not valid.
What the heck does Descartes this have to do with this discussion?
There are two mentions of what can only be described as dinosaurs in the Bible, and
ancient civilizations did make depictions of dinosaurs, that were not fantasy but living
creatures. The Chinese made ornaments that look identical to stegasaurus and triceratops
millenia before Chuck Darwin or Rene Descartes lived. The fossil record is not there to
prove evolution, it fails miserably; mutations do not advance, they deteriorate, and
the natural world is not the same natural world which used to exist. You are the one
who should look into this more if you have an open mind, the onus is not on creationists,
it is on evolutionists and the reason why they still can't convince a large segment of the
population is that there are those who are smart enough to see it is simply not valid.
So we have to choose between faulty logic in a flawed scientific theory and faith in an unseen higher power? Then I stand by my disbelief in both! I don't believe in the third option either: Our universe sits on an alien desk as an old science project he only go a C on...
There are two mentions of what can only be described as dinosaurs in the Bible, and
ancient civilizations did make depictions of dinosaurs, that were not fantasy but living
creatures. The Chinese made ornaments that look identical to stegasaurus and triceratops
millenia before Chuck Darwin or Rene Descartes lived. The fossil record is not there to
prove evolution, it fails miserably; mutations do not advance, they deteriorate, and
the natural world is not the same natural world which used to exist. You are the one
who should look into this more if you have an open mind, the onus is not on creationists,
it is on evolutionists and the reason why they still can't convince a large segment of the
population is that there are those who are smart enough to see it is simply not valid.
what? did you ever actually study animals? many insects look like creators from other worlds. Not to mention some fish. How about the freaky land dwellers and birds.
use your noggin and think how long it takes soil to turn into stone. And they can measure land movements down to less than mm.
Then, to top it off, since the bible does not tell us how god made man or anything about god's time frame other than he spoke in Jews terms. It seem painfully clear that your god did it through evolution. Instead of making your god seem small, how cool is it that he showed you how he did it? You should feel good.
Then toss in the fact artist that "make creative pictures" all the time. So everything they drawl they saw? For real? You have to use everything we know, not just what you need to know.
Do you know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?
From the way you phrased your comment you don't. Study up on that before using the word theory.
Hmmmm... I do. A hypothesis is a statement you intend to test given certain data that points to it. A theory is something made up by pieces of data that have been tested multiple times that you think fit together. In my words that is.
Both are theories. Neither is fact. Neither can be proven until time travel is possible. So I choose to believe neither. It was a theory that the earth was flat... guess that theory was wrong.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't believe in the third option either: Our universe sits on an alien desk as an old science project he only go a C on... 
